Democrats pretty darned excited about Supreme Court’s Second Amendment ruling

posted at 10:10 pm on June 29, 2010 by Allahpundit

As well they should be. Have a look at the graph published yesterday by Gallup.

There are plenty of gun-control true believers still out there, but the trendlines are all the other way. And in the sort of purplish rural districts where Democrats need to win to hold a majority in the House (think, for example, Pennsylvania), this issue is pure poison for them. Which is to say, in places where it matters, the gun-rights crowd has won this debate — decisively enough that the Dem leadership is actually cheering the Supremes’ decision insofar as it knocks this issue off the table for them in the fall. This is why I always laugh when a story sweeps the blogosphere about The One trying to grab people’s guns. He won’t do it, not because he doesn’t want to, necessarily, but because his party would never forgive him for the fallout.

In a Facebook post titled “Another Victory for the Second Amendment,” Palin wrote that the case “should leave little doubt that our individual right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere and is a right for everyone.”

[Harry] Reid essentially agreed, calling the right to bear arms “one of the essential freedoms on which our country was founded.”…

Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), a second-term Democrat representing a rural and small-town district in eastern Ohio, quickly sent a blast to his “Constitution-loving” constituents…

Also quick with praise were Democratic Reps. Tom Perriello of Virginia, Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona and Travis Childers of Mississippi, all facing tough races in November and all representing districts with large rural components where gun ownership rights are sacrosanct…

The Democratic sigh of relief after the McDonald decision wasn’t exactly a surprise — 80 House Democrats and 19 Senate Democrats signed onto an amicus brief opposing the Chicago gun ban, a tacit recognition that, for many Democratic legislators, gun control advocacy is akin to political suicide.

Glenn Reynolds calls gun rights “the new normal,” and while he’s speaking constitutionally, he could be speaking politically as well. Exit quotation from the next justice: “I do think that Heller is the law going forward. I have not had, myself, the occasion to delve into the history that the courts dealt with in Heller. But I have absolutely no reason to think that the court’s analysis was incorrect in any way. I accept the court’s analysis and will apply it going forward.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That’s ok. The UN gun treaty will fix everything..

katy on June 29, 2010 at 10:12 PM

There are a few other issues that may be a problem for the Dems/Libs….

d1carter on June 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM

He won’t do it, not because he doesn’t want to, necessarily, but because his party would never forgive him for the fallout.

and a few other reasons as well–like that 2nd amendment

ted c on June 29, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Glenn Reynolds calls gun rights “the new normal,” and while he’s speaking constitutionally, he could be speaking politically as well.

this has got to be like a Drano IV drip into those gun control folks’ veins. They ignore facts, ignore reality, and ignore truth—that is, responsible citizens practice responsible gun control and it contributes to ordered liberty and a safer society.

ted c on June 29, 2010 at 10:16 PM

I welcome all Democrats to the scary world of actually reading things.

Don’t be afraid Democrats, there are lots of other amendments… they don’t bite.

tetriskid on June 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM

The issue will never truly be knocked off the table. The gun control stigma has been seared into their being. They can make all the claims they want in the purple states, but will the voters TRUST them?

The deep blue states will continue to push the issue and effect the rest, look at abortion before/after Roe (I’m Pro-life, but also a realist).

clement on June 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM

anyone have a link to palin’s FB post AP has up there? I don’t FB.

ted c on June 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Ya,and thats why,along with amnesty for illegals,
they’ll be a whole lotta of rosy,more excited if
Kagan gets in as SCJOTUSA to Social Justice RE-
ENGINEER that little gun problem that the Liberal
Activists DESPISE so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on June 29, 2010 at 10:20 PM

anyone have a link to palin’s FB post AP has up there? I don’t FB.

ted c on June 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM

ted c: Is this it!!:)
==============================================

http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin

canopfor on June 29, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Well since (thanks to DOTUS) I now think that ALL DEMOCRATS IN WASHINGTON D.C. are filthy lying wretches I don’t believe their “spin” that they’re glad that the issue is off the table.

If they spin it one way……I’ll bet on the opposite being true. Until such time as I can find one Democrat that has the stones to the IMPEACHABLE DOTUS occupying the Oval Office.

PappyD61 on June 29, 2010 at 10:22 PM

So PBHO will find other more subtle ways to effect gun control, such as the various ammo measures they have thrown out for consideration, or suing gun manufacturers into the ground. “Sure, if you like your guns you can keep them, but all the gun makers are out of business.”

Bishop on June 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Earth to GOP, grab the narrative, this is a win, don’t let the Constitution haters turn this.

Speakup on June 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM

I can find one Democrat that has the stones to STAND UP TO THE IMPEACHABLE DOTUS occupying the Oval Office.

Stinking iPhone keyboard. :-)

PappyD61 on June 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM

That’s ok. The UN gun treaty will fix everything..

katy on June 29, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Would that make us traitor’s or patriot’s?

heshtesh on June 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM

That’s alright. Spin, y’all. Mr. McDonald can buy a gun to protect himself now.

kingsjester on June 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM

But….but…ummm…Liberals will interpret the gun laws
in their own view point,mind-set,and mind-frame,like Rosy
said in a video,

it was for the Colonies to have muskets against the British!

canopfor on June 29, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Of course, this also means that another issue will have to be used as a signal that they’re actually a “moderate”… look for it to be abortion…

ninjapirate on June 29, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Little Debbie Halvorson in Illinois 11 seems to think that this ruling will save her seat.
It won’t.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 29, 2010 at 10:27 PM

The gun controllers aka criminal enablers will now push even harder for increasingly burdensome liscensing and registration schemes, training requirements, taxes on ammo, require liability insurance etc.

aikidoka on June 29, 2010 at 10:29 PM

canopfor on June 29, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Kagan is replacing one of the justices from the 4 part of this decision, not the 5 part.

karenhasfreedom on June 29, 2010 at 10:29 PM

So PBHO will find other more subtle ways to effect gun control, such as the various ammo measures they have thrown out for consideration, or suing gun manufacturers into the ground. “Sure, if you like your guns you can keep them, but all the gun makers are out of business.”

Bishop on June 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Bishop:Ya,by putting Kagan on the bench!!:)

canopfor on June 29, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Hmmm. This is strange to me. Democrats are usually rather effeminate types who are afraid of guns because they make loud noises. Odd that they would applaud a pro-gun rights decision.

WarEagle01 on June 29, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Now if the Dems could get excited about, say, reducing spending…

Khun Joe on June 29, 2010 at 10:31 PM

canopfor on June 29, 2010 at 10:20 PM
Kagan is replacing one of the justices from the 4 part of this decision, not the 5 part.

karenhasfreedom on June 29, 2010 at 10:29 PM

karenhasfreedom: So,Kagan would rule in favour of gun
rights if it went to the SCOTUS!?

canopfor on June 29, 2010 at 10:33 PM

A man without a gun is a slave waiting for a master!

abobo on June 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Do these people have any freakin’ idea that the normal left vs. right arguments are not likely to be in play, or at least, in serious play this election cycle? With so many people out of work, housing getting read to nose dive -again- and absolutely no confidence that there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, who really gives a crap about the traditional argument over gun rights? Nobody can afford a legal one anyway. They’re going to get clobbered in November regardless of this decision.

It’s the economy, stupid.

BKeyser on June 29, 2010 at 10:35 PM

anyone have a link to palin’s FB post AP has up there? I don’t FB.

ted c on June 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM

ted c:)
==================================================
Another Victory for the Second AmendmentShare.

Yesterday at 1:46pm

The Supreme Court handed down an important ruling today stating what should be obvious: that the Second Amendment, in the words of Justice Alito writing for the court, “applies equally to the federal government and the states.” Today’s decision in McDonald vs. City of Chicago, in conjunction with the landmark Heller case two years ago, should leave little doubt that our individual right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere and is a right for everyone.
————–

http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin#!/notes/sarah-palin/another-victory-for-the-second-amendment/403024568434

canopfor on June 29, 2010 at 10:36 PM

aikidoka on June 29, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Which is why people should now go on the offensive to roll back restrictive rules now in place. I’m thinking the state of New York would be a good choice to pick a fight with.

Thomas Sowell has an interesting take on this ruling.

GnuBreed on June 29, 2010 at 10:37 PM

So, with this poll in mind, when will the Supremes start reversing previous restrictions based on the emerging social reality they like using for shutting down the death penalty?

OBQuiet on June 29, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Nobody can afford a legal one anyway.

You just need to know where to look, or know people who know where to look.

Bishop on June 29, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Of course they’re excited. As Tuco said, When it’s time to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.” And Tuco and his banditos are coming.

keep the change on June 29, 2010 at 10:39 PM

“I accept the court’s analysis and will apply it going forward.”


That is pretty much exactly what Sotomayor said about gun rights and look how she voted yesterday. Kagan’s words are meaningless. She’s telling GOP Senator’s what they want to hear and nothing more.

rcpjr on June 29, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Hey AP, love your work, but can you lose or gracefully retire the “Oh My”? I get Dick Enberg nightmares.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMOubVESowA

Del Dolemonte on June 29, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Looking at the graph, why the double spike just before 2000?

Del Dolemonte on June 29, 2010 at 10:48 PM

So PBHO will find other more subtle ways to effect gun control, such as the various ammo measures they have thrown out for consideration, or suing gun manufacturers into the ground. “Sure, if you like your guns you can keep them, but all the gun makers are out of business.”

Bishop on June 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM

My first thoughts were along those lines. I expect to hear of an onerous ammunition tax bill being proposed, with a patriotic sounding Orwellian moniker (like Employee Free Choice Act for “Card Check”); or possibly it will be tucked away in the fine print of a 2000 page “Crime Bill” or … well, you know the drill.

hillbillyjim on June 29, 2010 at 10:48 PM

That is pretty much exactly what Sotomayor said about gun rights and look how she voted yesterday. Kagan’s words are meaningless. She’s telling GOP Senator’s what they want to hear and nothing more.

rcpjr on June 29, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Like her good friend, everything she says to congress has an expiration date and from the sounds of it that date is fast approaching.

tommer74 on June 29, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Imagine that/

CWforFreedom on June 29, 2010 at 10:50 PM

He won’t do it, not because he doesn’t want to, necessarily, but because his party would never forgive him for the fallout.

That’s the same reason he refused to sign the health care bill too.

Oh….wait.

xblade on June 29, 2010 at 10:56 PM

katy on June 29, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Won’t get the needed 67 votes in the senate. Even then I think legally Constitutional rights remain superior to treaties.

chemman on June 29, 2010 at 10:56 PM

This is why I always laugh when a story sweeps the blogosphere about The One trying to grab people’s guns. He won’t do it, not because he doesn’t want to, necessarily, but because his party would never forgive him for the fallout.

Remember New Orleans. Remember Katrina.

We’re just one crisis (you know how The One loves those crisis’s) away from a gun grab.

Yakko77 on June 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM

heshtesh on June 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM

heh

…Patriotism/traitorism is in the eye of the holder.

katy on June 29, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Even then I think legally Constitutional rights remain superior to treaties.

chemman on June 29, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Depends on who’s President.

katy on June 29, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Which is to say, in places where it matters, the gun-rights crowd has won this debate — decisively enough that the Dem leadership is actually cheering the Supremes’ decision insofar as it knocks this issue off the table for them in the fall.

How unfortunate for Dems, then, that there’s at least a couple DOZEN other issues which are far more important to the American people.

But sure, what do I know? The gun rights issue is settled! That MUST mean that DEMS KEEP THEIR MAJORITY IN NOVEMBER!

Vyce on June 29, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Someone should tell Bloomberg and Daley.

Rocks on June 29, 2010 at 11:14 PM

but because his party would never forgive him for the fallout.

What in blazes makes you think that the “party” matters at all.

The Democrats are just a means to an end. They are just useful idiots to be expended when the time is right.

Rather like bloggers.

CrazyGene on June 29, 2010 at 11:16 PM

I always laugh when a story sweeps the blogosphere about The One trying to grab people’s guns. He won’t do it, not because he doesn’t want to, necessarily, but because his party would never forgive him for the fallout.

True.

But, we’re only one SCOTUS justice away from insane rulings. Obama isn’t going to directly “grab guns”, but he will, without a doubt, appoint another radical Constitution nullifier to the court given the chance.

forest on June 29, 2010 at 11:18 PM

Dem leadership is actually cheering the Supremes’ decision insofar as it knocks this issue off the table for them in the fall. This is why I always laugh when a story sweeps the blogosphere about The One trying to grab people’s guns. He won’t do it, not because he doesn’t want to, necessarily, but because his party would never forgive him for the fallout.

This doesn’t end the issue, it merely changes the focus. There are still many places in the U.S.A. where gun laws are so restrictive as to be de facto bans, or in the least heavy constraints. When CA goes “shall issue” for CCW then I’ll know we’ve made real progress.

pugwriter on June 29, 2010 at 11:31 PM

katy on June 29, 2010 at 10:12 PM

That particular issue is quietly hovering in the background.

They’d love to shove it down our throats but there’s that slight matter of Senate ‘approval of all treaties’.

This is not the O-care bill, they could slide that by because nobody bothered to read the fine print .

This is a tad different; the ‘rats will run from the SAT like a cat on fire.

Especially this year.

Besides, his lordship Mayor Daley is more than willing to keep the issue alive so the ‘rats ‘happy dance’ is trifle premature.

CPT. Charles on June 29, 2010 at 11:34 PM

Now…if they can just come to their senses and admit that abortion is outright murder, the healing of our nation can begin.

Al-Ozarka on June 29, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Don’t be afraid Democrats, there are lots of other amendments… they don’t bite.

tetriskid on June 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM

well they do if you’re a socialist.

Fighton03 on June 30, 2010 at 12:09 AM

That’s ok. The UN gun treaty will fix everything..

katy on June 29, 2010 at 10:12 PM

1. The UN Small Arms Treaty doesn’t have anything to do with domestic sales and ownership of firearms in the United States.

2. Even if it did, it doesn’t matter. The Senate would have to ratify it by 2/3 majority, which won’t happen.

3. International treaties don’t trump constitutional law.

Can we dispense with this “UN treaty is going to outlaw gun ownership” meme. It’s not true and it’s getting rather tiring.

dczombie on June 30, 2010 at 12:15 AM

dczombie on June 30, 2010 at 12:15 AM

You speak as though the United States is under the rule of the Constitution. Perhaps you’ve been away for a while or in deep deep denial.
The rule of law is being done away with piece by piece. By what authority do you speak of such a solid confidence that the way things have been will continue to be the way things will be?
It should NEVER grow old until our enemies are defeated. That will be exactly…..never in our life time.

katy on June 30, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Yep, this SCOTUS decision totally takes guns off of the table as a decisive issue … just like SCOTUS’s decision in Roe v. Wade took abortion off of the table as a decisive issue.

besser tot als rot on June 30, 2010 at 12:44 AM

Yep, this SCOTUS decision totally takes guns off of the table as a decisive issue … just like SCOTUS’s decision in Roe v. Wade took abortion off of the table as a decisive issue.

besser tot als rot on June 30, 2010 at 12:44 AM

errr – that should be divisive.

besser tot als rot on June 30, 2010 at 12:53 AM

insofar as it knocks this issue off the table for them in the fall.

Wrong. It doesn’t take anything off the table because local ordinances still regulate some ownership and the vast majority of people who are affected by those ordinances won’t see any change due to that ruling.

The only change anyone will see is an outright ban. Which very few places have. The heavily regulated areas won’t change at all.

But, the issue will continue to haunt some Dems because it shows they were on the wrong side of the constitutional argument if they support strict gun control.

That ruling has in no way made things easier on Democrats. I’m not sure why this fallacy is being spread.

ButterflyDragon on June 30, 2010 at 12:59 AM

An armed citizenry keeps the most outrageous poli-crooks thinking.

profitsbeard on June 30, 2010 at 1:00 AM

Which is to say, in places where it matters, the gun-rights crowd has won this debate — decisively enough that the Dem leadership is actually cheering the Supremes’ decision insofar as it knocks this issue off the table for them in the fall.

That all sounds true enough, but you may be underestimating the toxic reaction by the extreme left, who may well try to drag the issue back up anyway because they just can’t stand it.

I’d say there’s a good chance of it, because Pelosi and Obama are part of the extreme left. It would have been smart to let Obamacare lie when it proved to be so hugely unpopular, but they just couldn’t accept it. Cap and trade has also been unpopular, but they just keep pushing it.

We’ll see if the pragmatists in the Democratic party leave it alone, but I strongly suspect the next time Obama makes a White House address, especially if he addresses a joint session of Congress, he’ll make a few remarks about how wrong the Supreme Court was. I don’t think he could stand keeping his mouth shut.

There Goes The Neighborhood on June 30, 2010 at 1:52 AM

He won’t do it, not because he doesn’t want to, necessarily, but because his party would never forgive him for the fallout.

Yes, that’s right, because when I look at Obama’s legislative agenda thus far, I say, “There goes a man who’s truly, deeply concerned about political fallout.”

Fabozz on June 30, 2010 at 2:10 AM

Never, ever underestimate the capacity of Democrats to be lying, conniving schemers. Especially with a lying conniving duplicitous bastard in the White House.

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2010 at 2:23 AM

OT

chilling

check this.
http://www.borderinvasionpics.com/

ted c on June 30, 2010 at 5:49 AM

Did anybody read Thomas’ write up? It very clearly lays out the freedmen(ex-slaves) argument, who were harassed by Democrats Jim Crow laws and added a lot of history to the mix. A man without a gun is still a slave.

I wonder when black voters are going to figure out who is their slave masters now.

MLK was a Republican and those Democrat governors he was marching against across the South was their enemy. Why has things changed.

tarpon on June 30, 2010 at 6:25 AM

ted c on June 30, 2010 at 5:49 AM

isn’t it infuriating!! we see it on the news and I’m thinking instead of taking pictures, call ICE/border patrol and stop these folks

cmsinaz on June 30, 2010 at 6:45 AM

Also quick with praise were Democratic Reps. Tom Perriello of Virginia, Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona

When your state is being overrun by heavily armed and notoriously vicious Mexican drug cartels, restricting your citizens’ right to protect themselves probably isn’t a winning campaign strategy, eh Ann?

AZCoyote on June 30, 2010 at 6:54 AM

AZCoyote on June 30, 2010 at 6:54 AM

amen azc

cmsinaz on June 30, 2010 at 7:04 AM

MLK was a Republican and those Democrat governors he was marching against across the South was their enemy. Why has things changed.

tarpon on June 30, 2010 at 6:25 AM

MLK ideas were subverted by the Dems. They kept the equal rights = equal handouts, but conveniently forgot the responsibility, hard work, and other Christian ethos that MLK repeatedly spoke of. Sad really.

And just because they can’t ban guns doesn’t mean they won’t try to stop with ammunition. This administration has TWICE, stopped the resale of once fired brass for reloading. Montana Senators stepped in the first time, and Law Enforcement officials and Senators stepped in the second time. If the cost of ammo quadruples because of lack of supply, Law Enforcement gets hit badly. They practice a lot and use reloaded ammo for that. So do millions of law abiding gun owners.

So look for the brady d1cks to run around looking at how to stop ammo and parts supplies. Mind you, they cannot win with this route, however. We need to keep pummeling them with this stuff until they are totally disgraced with thier failures.

orbitalair on June 30, 2010 at 8:10 AM

Zack Space is an idiot…the people of Wooster Oh need to get rid of this goof ball Lawyer and elect Bob Gibbs for Congress..Bob Gibbs is a self employeed dairy farmer…he has had to work for a living.

charmingtail on June 30, 2010 at 8:12 AM

It is not necessarily true that the Court’s decision takes this off the table. First, the decision was 5-4, and as other recent decisions indicate, the liberal side of the bench has no problem overturning precedent that is not even 20 years old.

Second, as the Campaign Finance case demonstrates, the congress may immediately try to pass legislation to get around the decision.

So, despite this decision, the battle is far from over. Plus, there are lots of areas to be fleshed out. This case dealth with an outright ban. But what about licensing? What if the licensing is so onerous that in practicality it results in a ban? What firearms are included in the right? Are fully automatic firearms?

So, despite this decision, we need to remind gun owners/enthusiasts that the war is not won and that we need to keep supporting the party that supports the 2nd amendment. And, I think we need to educate voters that party affiliation matters as much, or even more than, individual vote records. B/c a dem senator can have a good voting record on gun rights, but by virtue of being a dem, can give the dems a Senate majority, which in turn can lead to another liberal Justice, which could in turn lead to this decision being either a) overturned or b) watered down such that the exceptions swallow the rule.

The GOP and other conservative groups, and the NRA, fail in this. They never try to educate voters to this fact, which is why we end up with “conservative dems”. All a conservative dem does is allow extreme liberalism to rule. It’s a farce. Anyone who is conservative would not help give power to the most liberal congressional dem majority of all time.

Monkeytoe on June 30, 2010 at 8:15 AM

It’s pretty much common knowledge that Chicago’s Mayor Daley pretty much went ballistic when he was told he could not enforce his beloved city gun ban, despite the fact that his gun ban is pretty much of a joke considering the number of murder by gun in the city since the stupid thing was imposed.

At the present time, Daley is suppose to be working on a new revision to the current ban, but it will really make little or no difference. Because this is Chicago and one way or another, people will get guns, either for offense or defense, ban or no ban.

pilamaye on June 30, 2010 at 8:49 AM

“Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors………and miss.”

-R. Heinlein

In celebration of the ruling, I open carried two sidearms yesterday, rather than my usual one. Sic semper tyrannus!

riverrat10k on June 30, 2010 at 8:55 AM

We need to keep pummeling them with this stuff until they are totally disgraced with thier failures.

orbitalair on June 30, 2010 at 8:10 AM

Those people have no shame and don’t feel disgrace.

riverrat10k on June 30, 2010 at 8:57 AM

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein

riverrat10k on June 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

When have the soulless democrats ever held to principle when the public and SCOTUS vote to the contrary?

So the different rationale between Scalia and Thomas will segregate constitutional conservatives via unenumerated vs. enumerated rights via Privileges and Immunities Clause?

Thomas’s lone dissent has planted the seeds for a constitutional reawakening rooted in the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

So what happened to Justice Scalia? In Barnett’s opinion, Scalia “doesn’t like unenumerated rights, and he’s afraid that the Privileges or Immunities will sanction unenumerated rights.” Adds Barnett: “Perhaps he’s right to be concerned, but it certainly goes against his originalism.”

maverick muse on June 30, 2010 at 9:32 AM

You speak as though the United States is under the rule of the Constitution. Perhaps you’ve been away for a while or in deep deep denial.
The rule of law is being done away with piece by piece. By what authority do you speak of such a solid confidence that the way things have been will continue to be the way things will be?
It should NEVER grow old until our enemies are defeated. That will be exactly…..never in our life time.

katy on June 30, 2010 at 12:31 AM

You have a lot of good reason to be sceptical and cynical. However, if the Constitution was dead we would not have had this SC decision and we would not have had Heller. Granted those were 5-4 decisions in which Kennedy happened to et out of bed on the right side on those particular days. Still, while your cynicism is warrented, it is perhaps a little overboard as far as this UN Small Arms treaty is concerned. The facts do not bear out your concerns.

dczombie on June 30, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Al Sharpton jumped on the Gun Rights bandwagon and hell froze over.

maverick muse on June 30, 2010 at 9:36 AM

It’s too late now. If they try and come for our guns, hell has no fury like second ammendment believer. Things would get terribly ugly fast.

saiga on June 30, 2010 at 9:57 AM

dczombie on June 30, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Zombie, the point in my comment is, we’re losing what we have taken for granted…and we should never assume we’re protected by the Constitution. Bits and pieces of sanity in court decisions should never be enough for us to feel at ease. We’re heading towards Global rule at break neck speed and the goal of the people in leadership right now is just that. Our sovereignty is the target and the tactic is one brick at a time. One positive ruling from ONLY ’5′ justices is no reason to celebrate and think the Constitution is safe!

katy on June 30, 2010 at 10:07 AM

How about a federal criminal law that imprisons any official that illegally deprives someone of their constitutional right to bear arms?

In New Orleans when the police cheif ordered all guns siezed from private citizens protecting their homes and businesses when the NRA won the answer was “OOPS, and we will do it again.” There were no fines, no penalties, no consequences. So when the Chicago Mayor and council seize the guns; 5 years after you spend $500k and get to the Supreme Court, “OOPS, we will make new rules and do it again.”

barnone on June 30, 2010 at 10:19 AM

The next salvo is working its way through the court system by the States that are creating their own carve-out for instate made arms sold to their own citizens not being under federal regulation or oversight. The last I looked the States doing this were: Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Tennessee and Idaho. I would not be surprized to see AZ, TX, VA, NV to follow suit.

When the States assert their sovereignty for their citizens to regulate their own self-protection by their own means within a State, then the commerce clause comes under attack by the Art. I, Section 10, para iii, Art IV Section 4 and Amendment II. That will be an interesting time as it would establish a firm and final limit to the commerce clause if won by the States and in the way things are heading it actually stands a decent chance and success. That and the GOP push for universal acceptance of a CCW issued by any State being acceptable within the US will begin the decline of that problem as some States have NO requirement for CCW for their citizens.

Just as everything else goes to pot, the glimmerings of a way out appear…

ajacksonian on June 30, 2010 at 10:33 AM

The liberal lie about victims of gun crime being allies to gun control advocates is dying.

I lost someone very, very close to me to murder. He was killed by a pistol. He was a law-abiding asset to his neighborhood and should have had his own gun to protect himself.

I had a guy with a blade get the jump on me one night at a taco-stand. This fucking creep meant to stick me with that fithy, biohazard of a blade he was holding. Luckily my friend who carries EVERYWHERE got the jump on him. Even a small Glock makes a big impression.

My old roommate shot a guy who tried to carjack him. He got off but had to wait 6 months to get his Beretta back.

In LA, it can be risky to carry. But it’s riskier waiting around for law enforcment to file reports…over your dead body.

The Race Card on June 30, 2010 at 2:00 PM

I have a very bad feeling about this. While I couldn’t tell you exactly why, I hear that little instinctive alarm bell going off in the back of my head.

Keep on guard, everyone.

Dark-Star on June 30, 2010 at 3:50 PM

I have a very bad feeling about this. While I couldn’t tell you exactly why, I hear that little instinctive alarm bell going off in the back of my head.

Keep on guard, everyone.

Dark-Star on June 30, 2010 at 3:50 PM

The only TIN FOIL ’round here gets wrapped around a good beef brisket so let’s not go there – but Dark-Star AMEN on ‘that feeling’ and AMENAGAIN about STAYING ‘on GUARD’!!

Katfish on June 30, 2010 at 7:42 PM